1 2 3 Previous Next 114 Replies Latest reply: Dec 12, 2008 5:38 AM by hrh gracie RSS

    PLEASE do something about performance

    hrh gracie Community Member
      I had v1 of LR, and 1.4. they weren't great, but the excuse was that catalogs had to be small. Seduced by claims that V2 was "much faster" I'm now at 2.1 and as near as I can tell performance is as bad as it's ever been if not worse than ever. I've created separate catalogs to reduce the size. I've DELETED my primary catalog and recreated it in 2.1 so there wouldn't be the excuse of it being an updated from v1 catalog. It's STILL SLOW... This is a catalog that only has about 35,000 images, of which about 2400 are derivatives (psd, jpg).

      This is a clean system running e6700 dual core cpus, 4GB of matched memory, an 8600GT video. The program is on 1 spindle. Catalog is on a SEPARATE RAID 1 drive pair. Images are on ANOTHER RAID 1 drive pair. Cache is on yet ANOTHER spindle... So, there shouldn't be contention for disk..... O/S is XP32 and ALL the disks have been degragmented.

      Start LR. And wait.... About 7 seconds to display the screen. Another 30-45 to fill the library thumbnails. BUT YOU'RE NOT DONE WAITING. It takes another 30+ seconds before the thing actually becomes active - prior to that any mouse click just displays the "Lightroom - Not responding"...

      Select an image in the library. Go to develop. It takes between 9 and 15 seconds for the thing to be ready to edit. This CANNOT be normal.

      Delete a keyword that has ONE image associated with it. It takes a MINIMUM of 24 seconds, and on a couple it took almost a MINUTE. Again, it CANNOT be designed to be this slow.

      And lets not even start on what it's like on the laptop with a 3.0 GHz P4 and 2GB of memory with the catalog and images on a USB external drive...

      I'm trying to use this thing, but it's PAINFUL. If there's a list of things that can be done to improve this abysmal performance, put it here or point me at it. I'll try pretty much anything reasonable at this point... If there's not, PLEASE, do SOMETHING SOON that'll help.
        • 1. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
          Lee Jay-7OQGJF Community Member
          My guess is that you have software issues, either with virus checkers (likely) or some other invasive applications constantly scanning your catalog folder. My systems are ~10 times slower than yours (2.8GHz P4 with 7200 RPM single drive sharing images and catalogs, or a 1.7GHz Pentium M laptop with 5400 RPM single drive sharing images and catalogs) yet perform ~10 times faster.
          • 2. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
            Jao vdL Community Member
            these issues are almost always caused by some external piece of software. As Lee says, virus checkers are the devil in this respect, as well as older drivers for wacom tablets, certain outdated graphic card drivers and others. Your system is far faster than anything I have and I see no such slowdowns.
            • 3. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
              Community Member
              Think about using a different Anti-Virus. These types of programs can be the <br />root(s) of all evils when it comes to computers IMHO. I have worked with <br />many different brands of antivirus sofware and while many opt for Nortons <br />(about the "WORST" there is!) or the free AVG, there are many out there that <br />can do much, much better with simplicity and better control as to avoid <br />these types of issues (if this is truley the issue as it pertains to your <br />questions and concerns). Not long ago I decided to give Kaspersky a try and <br />have been pretty happy. Granite, I had to answer a lot of prompts for the <br />program, but then in the long run, that will just make sure all is safe and <br />sound and sailing along with the the threat of some garbage passing through <br />and ruining my week.<br /><br />Just my two cents and no, I am not affliated with any company.<br /><br /><br /><br /><Jao@adobeforums.com> wrote in message <br />news:59b6fc94.1@webcrossing.la2eafNXanI...<br />> these issues are almost always caused by some external piece of software. <br />> As Lee says, virus checkers are the devil in this respect, as well as <br />> older drivers for wacom tablets, certain outdated graphic card drivers and <br />> others. Your system is far faster than anything I have and I see no such <br />> slowdowns.<br />>
              • 4. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                Lee Jay-7OQGJF Community Member
                By the way, I've used Norton, McAfee, and Symantec, and AVG has been by far the best and least intrusive, and that's what I use now.
                • 5. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                  hrh gracie Community Member
                  I've run AVG v8 and Windows Defender in the last 24 hours to see if there was some problem.  I also ran Ad-Aware and a couple other things.....  Then I shut them all off and REMOVED them.  NONE are currently running.  NOTHING else is running.  The box has been temporarily disconnected from the Internet so it can't get clobbered.<br />I ALSO ran one of the registry cleaners to see if there was a big mess in the registry....<br /><br />The Wacom tablet isn't connected to this machine, and there are currently no drivers loaded.<br /><br />Bridge pops up immediately.  Photoshop CS3 comes up as fast as CS3 normally does.  SQL Server runs perfectly when I have the services turned on.  Everything else on the box, which is a limited tool set since it's supposed to be the editing machine, seems to work as well as ever.  (CS3 is no flaming star of performance, but it works adequately most of the time)<br /><br />I've had a couple photographers at meetings tell me conversationally that they're also experiencing performance issues with LR, and during a demonstration of features by a major LR devotee (who I presume has his system well supported and fully optimized) I watched 2.0 perform about as slowly as it does on my laptop, but I debated whether or not to put this topic in here.  I've seen other topics on performance issues and I was pretty confident I'd get a bunch of responses pointing to areas that I don't believe are currently an issue, but I figured it was worth a try in case there was something I've missed or some significant effort under way to optimize the systems, optimize the software environment, or make major performance improvements....<br /><br />So, thanks for the replies, and if there's somewhere else to look let me know.<br /><br /><heavy sigh>I reckon I'll just keep working the way I am now - use LR to search across directories by keyword, find the images I want to work on, keep Bridge open to go to that directory and do the RAW processing on the images, and keep Photoshop open to do the real work.  It's a bother, but still faster than trying to go back and forth between the library and develop in LR.
                  • 6. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                    Lee Jay-7OQGJF Community Member
                    Next I would try a catalog backup and integrity check, and a catalog optimize after that.
                    • 7. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                      J McWilliams Community Member
                      While I know Jack about SQL, is it possible that running it and LR concurrently draws on some shared items?

                      You've stated you rebuilt the entire Previews folder, yes, by deleting it? Have you mashed Prefs?

                      Do you work in folder view? _ How many images tend to be in the strip at once?
                      • 8. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                        Community Member
                        Don't forget - no matter which antivirus you use, most good ones have a way to exclude certain folders and/or files. You could put in your lightroom catalogs or even photo directories as exclusions, to see if that helps. That would at least let you rule-in/rule-out AV software vs. something else.

                        Also, sometimes indexing programs can really hurt performance - like Google's or Microsoft's hard drive "search" indexing apps.
                        • 9. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                          hrh gracie Community Member
                          Catalog was backed up and checked 2 days ago. I haven't done an optimize. Although, it was just created last week in a futile attempt to boost performance. The old one was backed up, then deleted. Unfortunately, it takes between 30 and 36 hours for the thing to build a catalog of ~35,000 images, so rebuilding and replacing isn't viable except in case of a disaster.

                          SQL is't running. It CAN run, but the services are shut off while trying to get LR to work. When it does run, it runs fine. I'm not sure what "mashed Prefs" means. Can you explain, and is it a good thing or a bad thing? I generally start up in library view, with the grid visible. The filmstrip is generall shut off to try and preserve as much space as possible for the grid. The grid usually has around 24 (6 wide, 4 high) images visible on the left 24" 1920x1200 monitor. The right monitor is used as a second monitor.

                          Again, ALL the antivirus programs were run, then REMOVED. They were uninstalled and that machine disconnected from the internal network and Internet. It's just sitting there... How likely is it that MS indexing would have a significant adverse impact? Can I measure it or detect it? Are you saying that LR does NOT make use of the indexing that may or may not be being performed on the drives? And if not, and I should turn it off, which drives do I need to turn off? Images? Catalog? Cache? They're all on separate spindles...
                          • 10. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                            hrh gracie Community Member
                            Don't know if this will help, but.... Immediately after the last entry I started an integrity test. Memory usage is approximately 45MB during the check (a LOT smaller than when LR is up), and the check ran ... Both CPUs show activity, but typically between 1 and 4%... UNFORTUNATELY, it took 31:12 (yes, that 31 MINUTES) to check the integrity of a single catalog... Which has a catalog file 412MB and a total size, including previews (at least that's what I presume all the other files are) and a total size of approximately 4.9GB... Which FINALLY finished optimizing in just over 19 minutes...

                            Are there preferences that can be causing problems? Previews? In the preferences, I have Import set to dng, jpeg preview of "Medium size", image conversion to "preserve raw image", and Options "Compressed (lossless).....

                            In the catalog settings I have the file handling set to standard preview size "1440 pixels" (which seems really small to me), preview quality to "medium" (which I'd MUCH prefer high, but then the catalog is over 32GB), and discard 1:1 "30 days"

                            Is there anything else I can have this thing do to pre-build something that'll speed up normal operations?
                            • 11. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                              hrh gracie Community Member
                              Don't know if this will help, but.... Immediately after the last entry I started an integrity test. Memory usage is approximately 45MB during the check (a LOT smaller than when LR is up), and the check ran ... Both CPUs show activity, but typically between 1 and 4%... UNFORTUNATELY, it took 31:12 (yes, that 31 MINUTES) to check the integrity of a single catalog... Which has a catalog file 412MB and a total size, including previews (at least that's what I presume all the other files are) and a total size of approximately 4.9GB... Which FINALLY finished optimizing in just over 19 minutes...

                              Are there preferences that can be causing problems? Previews? In the preferences, I have Import set to dng, jpeg preview of "Medium size", image conversion to "preserve raw image", and Options "Compressed (lossless).....

                              In the catalog settings I have the file handling set to standard preview size "1440 pixels" (which seems really small to me), preview quality to "medium" (which I'd MUCH prefer high, but then the catalog is over 32GB), and discard 1:1 "30 days"

                              Is there anything else I can have this thing do to pre-build something that'll speed up normal operations?
                              • 12. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                Lee Jay-7OQGJF Community Member
                                You might try deleting your preferences entirely (see FAQ for locations).

                                Do you have a lot of top-level folders (hundreds or thousands)?
                                • 13. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                  J McWilliams Community Member
                                  Mash the Prefs = Trash them. Sorry for any confusion; shouldna used argot.

                                  From how you described it, you may have all 36,000 active; that's why I asked about folders. Select one with a few hundred images and see how that behaves.

                                  Another thing if none of the above gives results is to start a new catalog for testing.- one of a few hundred- to a couple of thousand images- you can later merge it with the main one if they are new images.
                                  • 14. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                    Community Member
                                    I have tried all of the above myself over at least 6 weeks, have posted support cases to Adobe, have a machine dedicated to Lightroom and Photoshop with no internet or no anti virus software. It took approx a month to get absolutely nowhere with a support case with Adobe. I cancelled the case in the hope that 2.1 might ultimately fix the problem.

                                    I am a CIO of a very large company, so I understand the technology.

                                    I have tried testing with small catelogs to eliminate the volume aspect.

                                    I have read every support case I could find and purchased various books, hoping that the appendices might give some further insight to performance issues.

                                    At this stage, I have put more effort into solving the problem than I will ever get a return on.

                                    There is a fundimental bug somewhere in the middle of Lightroom which is causing real world performance issues. Maybe its xml related, maybe its database related, maybe its related to the Adobe development toolkit, who knows.

                                    I have now given up trying to solve the problem, and despite the fact I love where Lightroom is going, I regard the current version as fundimentally flawed. If I knew I could solve the problem with hardware, I would. Cheaper than all the time I have mis-spent.

                                    Becasue 2.1 has not solved the problem I now have the prosepct to wait for 18 months for version 3 and maybe a new beta to test six months before then. What a delightful prospect.

                                    Everyone is very genuine with their responses, but all have been repeated multiple times already.

                                    As far as I am concerned, I am pushing this back to Adobe to solve, and would give it a bigger priority than the next release of any other Adobe product. This is a solvable problem, Adobe have the tools to do it.

                                    Please, please make it happen.
                                    • 15. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                      Photo_op8 Community Member
                                      Have you tried the following -

                                      Catalog Settings->Metadata->Uncheck "Automatically write changes into XMP"

                                      Sorry, if it was already listed in the thread, I didn't see it.
                                      • 16. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                        Community Member
                                        I get conflicting recommendations about this parameter. Are Adobe saying that we should Uncheck "Automatically write changes into XMP".

                                        If that is the case, then we have major issues in terms of integrating / interoperability of settings between Lightroom and Photoshop.

                                        Can we get a definite recommendation from Adobe.
                                        • 17. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                          Jao vdL Community Member
                                          >Are Adobe saying that we should Uncheck "Automatically write changes into XMP".

                                          They are saying that you should ONLY check it if your really really need it. There were and still are major slowdowns caused by this parameter. Just check the FAQ.

                                          >If that is the case, then we have major issues in terms of integrating / interoperability of settings between Lightroom and Photoshop.

                                          Why? I don't check that parameter and interoperability works perfectly fine.
                                          • 18. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                            JimHess-8IPblY Community Member
                                            If you are writing your changes to XMP, and if that is what is causing your slowdown, then you need to rethink your workflow. Lightroom creates a copy of your image, and that is what is opened in Photoshop. So my preferred workflow is to export all the images that I know I want to work on in Photoshop to a separate folder and then open those images in Photoshop without worrying to add them to the Lightroom catalog. Then you don't need XMP files because the exported images will have all of the Lightroom changes.
                                            • 19. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                              MethodPhoto CommunityMVP
                                              The reason to hammer XMP saving is more to do with 3rd party apps. Uncheck it to save yourself from slowdown grief. And if you need to save XMP, just select all your images and press Cmd/Crtl S when you need to!

                                              Just try it!
                                              • 20. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                Photo_op8 Community Member
                                                Are Adobe saying that we should Uncheck "Automatically write changes into XMP".

                                                Its a Preference! If your system is slow AND this may be a reason, then uncheck the preference and see if it improves the situation. Personally, I don't have the speed problem, NOW. I have a Mac, 4 gig Ram, LR v2.1, (3)7200 rpm drives (one each for application, cache and photos), stopped virus protection from scanning cache and photos, AND unchecked the automatic write changes. YMMV!
                                                • 21. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                  WinstonInBoise-bcPume Community Member
                                                  Have you purged the ACR Cache? My system becomes unusable when it fills up.

                                                  See MenuBar/Edit/Preference/FileHandling (bottom of page).

                                                  Winston Mitchell
                                                  Boise, Idaho
                                                  • 22. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                    dkperez:

                                                    Thank you. Your well written posts in this thread were a joy to read, even if it is a painful joy for those experiencing similar issues.

                                                    Yes, I feel your pain, because I have been ripping my hairs off at times due to the slowness of Lightroom. I attributed some of the my problems to my two-year old laptop computer, which had been a rocket back then but now is just OK (except for Lightroom which is painfully slow).

                                                    Unfortunately I do not have a solution for you, but I wanted to let you know that you are not alone. And your statements confirmed to me that Adobe must have gotten parts of this software entirely wrong. There are many proof points for Adobe's sloppy developing habits, so I do not think it's unrealistic to think that some of the problems also found their way into the internal workings. (Just looking at the weird directory and file structure makes me wonder - what did they think about that?)
                                                    • 23. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                      hrh gracie Community Member
                                                      Thanks everybody..... It may not get any faster, but once again (in theory) Adobe should know it isn't a completely isolated instance. Anecdotally, I can only imagine the number of thoroughly disgusted, furious users is represented by each of us that reports a problem in here.

                                                      In any case, I'll have to check the write to XMP, but I suspect I have it on. Why? Because if I'm going to use LR as a DAM, I have to associate keywords, captions, titles, copyrights, and any number of other bits of metadata with images. Whether or not those images are stored in directory A or directory B, whether or not they're worked on with Bridge, Photoshop, Elements, Faststone, Photomatix, or some other tool, when I make a change to the metadata associated with a .dng, .psd, or .jpg I want it immediately recorded so I don't have to remember an extra manual step to get the information written. If I only have 72 images or I was limited to working on a tiny subset that's explicitely bounded (say a photo shoot from a specific day) it may be acceptable to have to manually select images and tell LR to update the metadata. But I DON'T. I'm all over the catalog, getting images for displays, competitions, clients, and all sorts of silliness. So, when I'm changing keywords or adding other information I want it IMMEDIATELY stored. BUT, I'll certainly try turning off the write XMP to see if it makes a significant difference to startup, getting into develop, movement through keyword lists, or many of the other areas where performance is poor.

                                                      As far as purging cache, I don't believe I've done that. I'll find out how and give it a try - fervently hoping it works A LOT faster than optimizing a catalog that's only 5GB (which as I wrote yesterday took an incredble-seeming amount of time)...

                                                      BTW: I'm still waiting on the specifics of size and quality of previews on performance... How large is large enough? How good is good enough? I know I'd MUCH prefer high quality previews for doing critical decision making, but how large should they be for 24" monitors running 1920x1200, how much will the catalog grow with the higher quality and larger previews, and what effect will it have on performance? Is this information documented somewhere in the LR documentation?
                                                      • 24. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                        Lee Jay-7OQGJF Community Member
                                                        > How large is large enough?

                                                        Large enough to mostly cover your monitor's viewing space, but preferably less than half the pixel dimension of your camera. I usually use 1680 for my 1920 monitor.
                                                        • 25. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                          Community Member
                                                          I must second turning off MS's indexing service. Unless you run regular searchs with MS's search feature on your HD it is a total resource hog to leave it on. Turn it off for every drive you have. Unless of course you use MS's search/find feature.

                                                          I almost never do. And when I do it never takes too long to run my search.

                                                          LR is not a screamer by any means, but it should be faster than you mention. Especially with your system specs.

                                                          Good luck.
                                                          • 26. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                            Community Member
                                                            I appreciate the feedback here and will revisit the xmp setting as well as double checking the Microsoft indexing.

                                                            I was not sure what FAQs to pay allegiance to, pre and post the release of 2.1.

                                                            I was struck by how remarkable other peoples experiences are to myself. The common factors are several of the following.

                                                            Fairly powerful hardware
                                                            Advanced users
                                                            Good trouble shooting skills
                                                            Experience / use of photoshop
                                                            Prepared to read the documentation....I could go on.

                                                            Anyway.. thanks for the feedback and support.
                                                            • 27. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                              lalittle Community Member
                                                              > I have worked with many different brands of antivirus sofware and while many opt for Nortons (about the "WORST" there is!) or the free AVG, there are many out there that can do much, much better with simplicity and better control as to avoid these types of issues.

                                                              A bit off the main topic here, but:

                                                              I've always avoided Norton as well for it's drain on system resources, but the newest version (2009) supposedly addresses this issue as one of the number one concerns. Based on reviews, it's actually MUCH better at not slowing the system down. I have not tried it yet, but I've read several reviews saying that ex-Norton users are returning to Norton due to this specific improvement.

                                                              It should also be noted that according to the independent tests I've seen, the actual scanning robustness is pretty high on many of the main stream scanners, including Norton. Be careful not to just assume that mainstream apps are not as good as the "other guys."

                                                              Larry
                                                              • 28. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                johnhawk666 Community Member
                                                                Just to back up lalittle - the new 2009 version of Nortons Security Suite has got a best in show rating from PC Pro (U.K. magazine) and they seem to have solved its hogging of resources .
                                                                • 29. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                  You know.. just about the time I get ready to load 2.1 on my Mac Book Pro, I see one of these posts. I have taken the route of keeping catalogs small, have some groupings within a catalog, but don't have one of these tens of thousands of images in one catalog set-ups.

                                                                  What I'd like to know is if this is possible. I think it should be. I should be able to have 1.4 and 2.1 both on the Mac. I can put a set of images on two identical FW800 7200 RPM drives I have. I should be able to then create a new catalog in each version of the product, and compare timings side by side. Is this a correct assumption. I know this doesn't help Windows users, but I'm hoping it will see if the same thing being done shows any huge difference from one version to the other.

                                                                  Will this work? Any thoughts?

                                                                  Jay S.
                                                                  • 30. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                    M Behrens Community Member
                                                                    Yes LR 1.4.1 and 2.1 will run side by side. They will each need their own catalog as you've stated.

                                                                    However, there was a bug in 2.0 on windows with both installed that cause the performance of the 2.0 install to be terrible. Uninstalling 1.4.1 helped, didn't solve, the general performance issues with 2.0 and 2.1.

                                                                    Let us know how the timing turn out. As the OP states though, all of this testing is a lot to ask of us end users.
                                                                    • 31. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                      hrh gracie Community Member
                                                                      Testing can't hurt, but unfortunately I"m starting to suspect this is somehow related to size (35K images), complexity (33K .dng RAW), keywording (I think a moderate amount), metadata (copyright, caption, other IPTC data, etc) or some other criteria. And the current version of LR makes it non-feasible to test since it takes somewhere around 30 hours to create a catalog, and incredible amounts of time just to optimize or or test the integrity of a catalog. And don't even THINK about doing something like an update for DNG previews and metadata or synchronizing the catalog... I've tried doing these and it can EASILY TAKE 24 hours to do either.

                                                                      With LR being touted as a "professional level" DAM tool I can't imagine that Adobe didn't do extensive testing on average systems with much larger and more complex catalogs than I'm using.
                                                                      • 32. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                        M Behrens Community Member
                                                                        dkperez, do you still have V1.4.1 installed? If so, uninstall it. Having both 1.4.1 and 2.0 installed caused some crazy resource use issues with Winsows XP and peformance was similar to your experience.
                                                                        • 33. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                          hrh gracie Community Member
                                                                          I finally had a chance to turn off indexing on all the disks on the system. All 10 partitions on 6 spindles have the indexing off....

                                                                          I BELIEVE it may have improved startup slightly and possibly even time to go from library to develop, but the change isn't so significant that it's cause for jubilation... At this point I'm not even sure it isn't just me trying to convince myself it's faster...

                                                                          As far as cache... I have my cache on a separate spindle from programs, images, and catalog... And I've set the size to 15GB, which I presume should be enough? I've also purged it. Do I need to give it more room? Less?

                                                                          Other than these last two things I'm not sure where to go except to await the next release in the hope there'll be significant effort put into some of the performance issues brought up in the forums.
                                                                          • 34. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                            Jao vdL Community Member
                                                                            >As far as cache... I have my cache on a separate spindle from programs, images, and catalog... And I've set the size to 15GB, which I presume should be enough? I've also purged it. Do I need to give it more room? Less?

                                                                            Since giving it more space didn't seem to do much, the obvious thing to do is try less. Some counterintuitive anecdotal evidence has shown that lowering the cache in very limited circumstances leads to an actual speed increase.
                                                                            • 35. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                              Community Member
                                                                              To dkperez.

                                                                              Thank you for exploring and exhausting all options possible to eliminate this dreadful performance issue. Your experience is almost identical to mine.

                                                                              Can I ask one specific question.

                                                                              I have concerns that Lightroom makes assumptions as to where certain files are located, based on the operating system (eg My Pictures sometimes). Maybe if it does not find what its looking for, it searches alternatives (ie sloppy code or bad file location standards). You have a large installation with many spindles. At a certain point in time I replaced my OS (XP) becasue of a disc crash. As a result, my system drive is no longer my C drive. For people who are using a PC with a single drive they will not have the issue of Lightroom searching for certain resourcs on disc as they will always be only one drive (they will only have a C drive.

                                                                              You have a large installation with many spindles. Did you every upgrade your OS in situ or change your system drive to something other than C.

                                                                              I have a strong suspicion that Lightroom is going to a disc to get info, cannot find it, searches other spinles to find it. This means that CPU cycles are low (as is my experience), disc i/o apears low as it is not reading large data volumes off the disk (as is my experience), yet awful delays in responses.

                                                                              I know this will not explain everything, but just looking for a particular needle in a needle stack.
                                                                              • 36. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                                hmmm - what would REALLY slow it down is if one of the volumes is a network drive, in fact just having any networked mapped drives might be part of the problem

                                                                                the thing that gets me is how inconsistent the spead problem is today for instance is a teeth curling half a second per udpate to move a slider day, making the program virtually useless, other days I get about 10 updates per second, which is bareable.

                                                                                I can only assume that the speed problems are fundemental, otherwise adobe would've sorted it bow now
                                                                                • 37. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                                  hrh gracie Community Member
                                                                                  Actually, I've got 2 system disks... XP 64 runs from the 'C' drive and XP 32 from the 'D' drive. I put XP64 on in hope that 64-bit would somehow magically work significantly faster. AS you can imagine, it didn't.

                                                                                  Unfortunately, since there are still things that don't work on XP64, I haven't tuned LR there as much as on XP32. I also see the painfully slow movement on sliders. Just moving through the library can be painful. And moving around keywords is even worse...

                                                                                  And, AT THE MOMENT, I'm waiting for LR to crash 'cause it's frozen totally... Added a couple files to a collection, went back and started moving through the library again, and voila, totally hung...
                                                                                  I figure eventually, trying to end it in the Task Manager will work...
                                                                                  • 38. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                                    Community Member
                                                                                    Speculation 1.

                                                                                    I think that Lightroom does not know how to cope with finding directly the files it needs off the discs and has generic routines built in to several places within the application to cope with different operating systems and operating systems default locations. My situation is almost identical to dkperez in that my OS is not on a c DRIVE. This may be a reason why they are pushing network drives so far into the background (ps I am not using networked drives for lightroom, but I am for other apps).

                                                                                    Speculation 2.
                                                                                    I have been studying up on sharpening, in order to gain a fundamental understanding of the interplay between the sharpening sliders, arising from over sharpened prints (my fault). Both the detail and the mask slider must be performing very large cycles of calculations, particularly on full frame images. Is there any possibility that there is a link between the sharpening settings and the abysmal performance of local / grad adjustments, as both functions have to operate at pixel level and may be competing or in conflict with each other. Is there a case to set sharpening to zero while performing local or grad adjustments. (As I write I can vaguely recall some parameter which may influence the display of sharpening..need to check this out myself)

                                                                                    Speculation 3.
                                                                                    At the final stages of an editing session, I have been using the library mode to examine large views of my final picks(ie full screen, no panels, lights out, etc, on say 20 filtered out of 150 images) as it is faster than going sequentially through the same screen in the develop module, sometimes I will use the slide show mode as I can have key information overlayed on the image. I have come across an article which makes reference to the fact that the develop module uses the ProPhoto RGB colour space, while the Library and other modules uses the adobe RGB space for display. I mention this, because this pushes me back to the slower develop module to review my finished images and may explain or partially explain why my prints are darker than what my calibrated screen shows. I welcome any comments on this point.
                                                                                    • 39. Re: PLEASE do something about performance
                                                                                      hrh gracie Community Member
                                                                                      I don't know if this will help or not, but here's another example of what I think is a huge performance problem.....

                                                                                      Last night, after restarting LR, and making sure NOTHING else is/was running on the machine, I deleted a second level keyword (I didn't plan it, I just got stupid)... Fortunately, I now have the "write changes" turned off, so nothing got clobbered on the disk. SO, I selected all 35K images, and told LR to "Read Metada from File". After an incredibly long time - minutes - I finally got a progress bar and quit for the night... So, around 11:45 last night it started getting metadata................ Fast forward to 07:00 this morning... IT'S 27% DONE..... In over 7 hours it's managed to get 27% of the way through the read... Nothing else going on, machine quiet except for LR. It's currently using 2.83GB of memory, and both CPUs are bouncing between around 4% and 55%. If I presume it's working at a consistent speed, this would mean it read around 9000 records in 7.25 hours, or about 1300 records/HOUR. Which means it's taking about 3.5 seconds PER RECORD to just read a bit of metadata and hopefully update the catalog....... That seems like a major performance problem. Is it as designed to have it take this long?
                                                                                      And all this activity is coming from, and going to RAID arrays on separate sets of spindles... At this speed, I'd recommend y'all be VERY careful not to delete any keywords 'cause it looks like it's going to take somewhere around A DAY AND A HALF just to get mine updated.
                                                                                      1 2 3 Previous Next